this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2026
44 points (100.0% liked)
World News
2223 readers
798 users here now
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You have that backwards..... This is trying to combat the negative outcomes of Han chauvinism without addressing the root cause. You can't just solve the problem by declaring all ethnicities are the same and then do nothing to address the systemic inequalities.
Han chauvinism isn't caused by minority separatism, minority separatism is a response to han supremacy. This would be like saying that black nationalist in America are the cause of American white supremacy.
You do realize you are claiming that international actors are responsible for han chauvinism...... How does this make sense?
That is the One China principal, which is the CCPs internal policy of sovereignty, which is still mainly aimed at national sovereignty and not ethnic principles. This was a response to the KMTs claim over mainland China, and doesn't really mention ethnic conflict.
All the example you gave ignore the systemic inequalities, and only focus on cultural exchange. That would be like saying the US solved their systemic racism because they celebrate Juneteenth and have a black history month.
Ethnic minorities still experience income, educational , and health inequalities even when taking account of spatial inequalities. When we disregard spatial inequality and examine ethnic demographics within the autonomous zone, the Inequalities are even more stark.
Imo, this is due to the lack of minority representation in the higher government. In the current 24 person politburo, all representatives are older men of han descendent. Historically there have only been 3 ethnic minorities to ever serve in the politburo, going back to the 1950's, and none of which have ever made it to the standing committee. As far as regional representation for the five ethnic minority autonomous provinces (the Tibetan Autonomous Region, the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, and the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region), the region's top post of party secretary has been given to a Han Chinese over the past 35 years.
No, I am claiming the US has an extensive history of specifically using racial tensions and prexisting cultural biases to foment destablizing revolutionary behavior in extreme minority view populations.
The US has spent no less than 30 billion dollars on exactly this. This is literally the exclusive reason for the great firewall. To stop US psyops.
The entire 'East Turkestan' movement is a US-led movement meant to destablize china. The terror attacks, everything, was caused by the US. It's literally the CIA playbook, this isn't even controversial information.
Okay so at least you're slightly better than most liberals here, to be clear China has spent $15 billion USD in xinjian since the early 2000s US-led terror attacks specifically to quash this disparity and the recent massive multi-tens-of-billions investment in education (not cultural exchange) that I listed is a part of that movement to erase that inequality mostly caused by rurality, not minority. As a counter example the Yue people are a minority, they have no significant disparity with the Han ethnicities (of which there are over 90 recognized).
I'm not saying China's not perfect, or that Han Chauvinism isn't real.
I am saying this order is to directly combat US covert and overt operations using malcontent extremist minority groups that have directly and provably caused terror attacks and have worked to dismantle Chinese Unity attempts. This requires issuing arrest warrants for foreign and formerly domestic adversaries in the East Turkestan movement, for instance, and working to arrest them. Which this law provides the ability to do.
As a side note, pretending, for some reason, that the US does not have a ridiculously long history of attacking sovereign countries like this when you are currently still at war with Iran is insane btw. The US did this in Iran in the 1970s. and 1960s, and 1990s, and 2000s, and literally 3 months before this war, according to Trump.
The US government takes advantage of ethnic tension and foments it for political gain, however they are not responsible for the tension existing in the first place. Ethnic conflict in China predates the United states existence. The concept of modern han chauvinism was internally criticized by Mao himself.
Again.... My point was that these types of propaganda campaigns are only effective because there are still systemic ethnic inequalities within China.
First of all, I am a socialist who was raised by an asian immigrant who had to leave their country because they were a socialist. Calling me a liberal is an insult to my family's honor.
Secondly most of that funding has gone to benefit ethnic Han who have migrated to the urbanized areas of Xijiang, which in turn has forced more of the minority population into the rural areas of the autonomous zone.
The studies I linked accounts for disparity between rural and urbanized areas of China. Even when accounting for spatial disparity economic stratification for ethnic minority groups is increasing in education, healthcare, and income.
Are you talking about the Baiyue people? That ethnic group was assimilated during the qin and han empire. It's no longer an actual ethnic group, though there are some theories that the boat people from Hong Kong are distantly related to them.
And I started out by explaining that Han chauvinism is the reason propaganda programs like the ones the US is utilizing is why they could gain popularity in the first place. I never said the US isn't taking advantage of the situation, just that the ethnic disparity is why it's effective.
When did I say they weren't running propaganda campaigns?
You are making a lot of assumptions based on one accurate criticism I have about the CCP. You've mostly been arguing against claims I've never made despite the fact that I started this conversation stating that I support the vast majority of the goals and policies of the CCP. You would think that someone with marx in their user name wouldn't be so knee jerkingly adverse to self criticism.